Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

[ottawak]

Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas affirmed the evolution of Adam rather than a special act of creation? Yes, I missed that.

You missed the point, too, apparently.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV being AV, however, may pick the third option -- that God deliberately falsified the "apparent" age of the universe and literally everything in it as a test of faith... because only an unquestioning belief in the absolute literalism of the Book of Genesis is sufficient for a Christian.

No.

That is called Apparent Age Creation.

I subscribe to Embedded Age Creation.

 

[ottawak]

No.

That is called Apparent Age Creation.

I subscribe to Embedded Age Creation.

A distinction without a difference, as both encounter the same theological difficulties.

 

[atpollard]

There is no leap, just gradual change. The way the term is used by biologists, "macro-evolution" begins with speciation--which has been observed.

Another half-truth.
Speciation has only been observed after redefining species. Under the new definition, African Homo Sapiens and European Homo Sapiens would be different species, unlike the old definition that focused on the ability to breed and produce fertile offspring.

I was underwhelmed by the evolution of “Big Bird” on the Galápagos Islands. Breeding Labradoodles is not really what I envision as a new species … it is still just a “dog”.

So write me off as a Luddite.

 

[atpollard]

You missed the point, too, apparently.

So did you.

 

[ottawak]

Another half-truth.
Speciation has only been observed after redefining species. Under the new definition, African Homo Sapiens and European Homo Sapiens would be different species, unlike the old definition that focused on the ability to breed and produce fertile offspring.

I was underwhelmed by the evolution of “Big Bird” on the Galápagos Islands. Breeding Labradoodles is not really what I envision as a new species … it is still just a “dog”.

"Dog" is not a species.

So write me off as a Luddite.

When was "species" redefined? Do you have a citation?

 

[ottawak]

So did you.

I was replying to your assertion that a natural cause for a phemonon rules out a divine cause. Was that not your point?

 

[Bradskii]

AV being AV, however, may pick the third option -- that God deliberately falsified the "apparent" age of the universe and literally everything in it as a test of faith... because only an unquestioning belief in the absolute literalism of the Book of Genesis is sufficient for a Christian.

And that would be...deception. Isn't Satan a master at that?

 

[AV1611VET]

A distinction without a difference, as both encounter the same theological difficulties.

And you're wrong, of course.

 

[ottawak]

And you're wrong, of course.

No, they're both lame apologetics for a dubious reading of Genesis.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, they're both lame apologetics for a dubious reading of Genesis.

I understand you think both are lame, and that's your prerogative.

But if you want to think both are the same thing, you're quite wrong.

 

[ottawak]

I understand you think both are lame, and that's your prerogative.

But if you want to think both are the same thing, you're quite wrong.

I didn't say they were the same thing. I said the difference between them does not save them from facing the same theological difficulties.

 

[TLK Valentine]

And that would be...deception. Isn't Satan a master at that?

Even masters have to learn from somewhere...

 

[stevil]

Either every single scientist, every single experiment, every single observation, all the available evidence, every theory that we have, all information gathered over hundreds of years in scientific areas such as geology, astronomy, physics, evolutionary biology etc etc etc is wrong..

Not just wrong, but different methods, different formula, vastly different subject matter all resulting in a consistent narrative a logical narrative that all matches up. So they are all wrong but in a coincidental way that makes them consistent??? It would be an amazing fluke.

or you are taking an explanation of the act of creation, written by people a couple of thousand years ago in a book which is replete with parables and metaphors, who had zero idea of the science needed to make even a rough guess at actual ages and reading it literally.

OR
Perhaps, let's just say the literal creationist are correct.
Then perhaps their god is trying to tell us something and we should investigate the evidence further and draw conclusions that the evidence is telling us. After all god created this evidence and manipulated it to tell some kind of consistent story. If GOD is telling us this story, you would think the Young Earth Creationists would want to listen. You'd think they would keep abreast of what the scientists are finding in the evidence and try to work out what their god is telling us.

But instead we have them running around fingers in ears, closing their eyes yelling "Lies, lies, lies, it's all lies"

Why won't they marvel at this incredible place that god created? Why won't they look at this astounding evidence that god left for them? Why won't they go down this journey of discovering god's message written into the natural world?

 

[TLK Valentine]

No.

That is called Apparent Age Creation.

I subscribe to Embedded Age Creation.

A distinction without a difference - or at least without one anyone cares about - so long as you ignore observation and worship Documentation.

 

[AV1611VET]

I didn't say they were the same thing. I said the difference between them does not save them from facing the same theological difficulties.

Do you even know the difference between them? or are they both just wrong difficult on principle?

 

[AV1611VET]

A distinction without a difference - or at least without one anyone cares about - so long as you ignore observation and worship Documentation.

And what is that difference, chief? or, as I suspect, they're both wrong on principle?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Do you even know the difference between them? or are they both just wrong difficult on principle?

Nobody cares, AV.

If Bob says the planet is held up by a giant turtle, and you say it's held up by a giant walrus, they are different -- but they face the same problem.

 

[TLK Valentine]

And what is that difference, chief? or, as I suspect, they're both wrong on principle?

They're both theologically wrong because they require a deceptive god.

Nobody cares about the precise method of deception.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nobody cares, AV.

If Bob says the planet is held up by a giant turtle, and you say it's held up by a giant walrus, they are different -- but they face the same problem.

Thanks for the QED.